Follow TV Tropes


WMG / Night at the Museum

Go To

Refrain from using First-Person Writing on this page. This is not a forum.

When a miniature "dies", they no longer can "come to life" at Sunset.
That's what would have happened in NaTM 2 if Octavus hadn't saved Jed from "dying". Yeah, he's a plastic miniature- but if he had "died" he just wouldn't ever have woken up after the museum "closed" (Sunset?) again.
  • Maybe Larry and co were worried about Jed in the hour-glass since once it's full, he would be stuck inside and could neither move or talk.
  • Alternatively, Jed could be re-awakened if he "died", but his memories of previous awakenings would be erased and he'd have forgotten all about his friendship with Octavius and the others.
  • Advertisement:
  • But why would this only apply to miniatures? It's more likly they were trying to save Jed because they didn't know what would happen to him.

The paintings were actually portals to other universes.
This is why "Joey Motorola" could find a cell phone and "recreate" it while that is not historically accurate- it's because it's not our past, but a different plane of existance.

Ahkmenrah's death.
The Cain and Abel way: It's not outright stated that Kahmun killed his brother when "mother and father" gave Egypt to the more thoughtful Ahkmen, but considering that Ahkmen, who's the real thing, is still younger-looking then a model of his brother...
  • In the Wii video game, what Ahkmenrah said that his brother (Kahmunrah) may know more about the tablet after he died, which indicates that Ahkmenrah died before Kahmunrah.
  • This is also supported by the film. Kahmunrah states that his parents gave the throne to his younger brother, but he also claims that he was also a pharaoh. The only way that both statements could be true is if he took the throne after Ahkmenrah's demise. And Kahmunrah doesn't seem to be someone patient enough to wait for natural causes to do his sibling in.

The figures are at least somewhat real when brought to life.
There was a scene in the sequel that brings special attention to Roosevelt's skin as it slowly morphs back to wax at sunrise. Also, the Civil War guys as well as the cowboys can fire bullets in the first one despite the fact that it's highly unlikely the museum would put working gunpowder in the replicas. The statues are able to talk, despite lacking lungs and a voicebox. And let's not forget the mummies, which proves the tablet can transform them to a certain degree, since it turns them from decayed corpse to a living person, and back again.

The fact that we saw the inside of a wax statue instead of guts when Roosevelt was run over does throw a monkey wrench into this theory somewhat. The best explanation is that the transformation only goes in about skin deep.

Ahkmenrah is Marcos Al-Zacar from 24.
Yeah, this is either Jossed or just plain silly, but it's wanted to be told somewhere. You know that when Marcos exploded in the oxygen chamber we couldn't see his body, just blood. So maybe he was sucked by some black hole or some science phenomena that had to do with teleportation and was brainwashed. See, told you that was silly.

Dr. McPhee knew what was going on the whole time.
Somebody on IMDB suggested it. He gets angry at Larry because the museum is messy, but he never asks HOW it happened, he only tells Larry to do better next time or he's fired. Also, at the end, when McPhee has seen the news reports, he doesn't ask Larry HOW he could have created dinosaur tracks in the snow or put a caveman on the roof. And it would be sort of cool if the museum directors knew the secret and told their successors, just like the night guards.
  • Jossed. He doesn't know what is happening and wouldn't believe it even if he was told the truth until the very end of the third movie where he sees the tablet glow.

McPhee has a crush on Larry.
At least in the sequel. He just seems... hurt (or something) that Larry left.

At some point, the tablet was displayed in England, either as part of a traveling exhibition or just on loan.
Ahkmenrah said he learned English when he was on display in Cambridge. He couldn't have overheard enough English to learn unless the tablet made him alive, so the tablet must have been with him. Since we're told the tablet was uncovered by archeologists working for the New York museum and brought back there shortly after, where it started to work its magic, he couldn't have been on display in Cambridge with the tablet before coming to New York. So, between the time the tablet was brought to New York and the trip to Cambridge, Ahkmenrah was awake in the museum, but didn't know English.
  • Except that Kahmunrah knew English, too, and French. Maybe they just absorb whatever's around them, even without the tablet, so they have the knowledge when it does bring them to life.
  • It was implied in the first movie that the exhibits still know what happens around them during the day, with the whole Dexter "A storm is coming" thing and Larry's thanks to Teddy, already a statue, at the end.
  • Then why can he speak to Atila the Hun in the first movie?
  • It's heavily implied that Ahkmenrah and the tablet are a set, but regardless of that he didn't have to learn languages just from overhearing them from the living. He could have learned them from other exhibits, pamphlets, book's kept on site, or audio tours that come in multiple languages. It wouldn't be easy to learn that way, but he's had decades to do it. Also he would have had a pretty good education before he died being a well educated prince, so he probably knew more than one language to begin with.
Lancelot's exhibit wasn't meant to be about King Arthur, Camelot, or Lancelot himself
It was simply a Middle Ages display, and Lancelot was meant to be just a nameless mannequin to display the armor, but while Lancelot the mannequin was being made, his maker thought about the old stories and named him and such, leaving an imprint on the mannequin and giving him that identity when he was brought to life.
The movies take place in an alternate universe
Beyond the obvious "magics not real" thing, there are several discrepancies listed around this site like how the real life museums don't have some of the exhibits shown, or how in real life their hours are completely different, or there would be more guards, and security cameras and on and on and on. But if the movie was set in a universe only slightly different from our own then these things are in fact exactly as they are meant to be.
  • Makes sense. After all, there was never a Pharaoh Merenkahre, Ahkmenrah, or Kahmunrah in our reality, so at least a small chunk of ancient history was different. So smaller differences concerning the museums and such isn't too great a stretch.
  • Every single movie in the world takes place in an alternate universe, since their protagonists aren't real. Well, except for the non-fictional stories.
    • Even then, the non-fiction movies could be said to take place in an alternate universe, since it's just about impossible to get every single detail in a non-fiction movie exactly like it was in reality (not to mention the fact that some details are changed or scrapped entirely for drama).

This is the same reality as the Channel Awesome universe.
Linkara, like the tablet, uses what amounts to sympathetic magic. He worked briefly at the Museum, and studied the tablet. The chaos of the exhibit led to his belief that Ancient Egypt is evil.

Amelia didn't turn to dust.
She became real, assumed a new identity and is playing dumb to get close to Larry again.

Akhmenrah's parents are right.
When we first meet Akhmenrah's parents, they say that the Egyptian gods are the only true gods. This is played for laughs with Larry explaining that they try to keep a more open mind. The problem here is that the Egyptian gods ARE real; the tablet was created as a blessing from Khonsu. This implies that in the Night at the Museum universe, the Egyptian gods (and presumably only them) are a real and active force in the universe.

Laa is played by Tom Cruise.
Or so the Internet rumors, despite that the credits definitely say Ben Stiller. (At least we can safely exclude Adam Duritz...)

Kahmunrah was never real.
While Kahmunrah has his own exhibit in the Smithsonian, it is very possible that Kahmunrah is a character inadvertently created through mistakes in Egyptology done in ignorance or missing pieces lost to time, and that the various artifacts that supposedly belonged to him actually belonged to his "father" or "brother" and that Kahmunrah is an In-Universe case of Decomposite Character, not unlike Frigga and Freya in Norse Mythology. The concept of a fictional character coming to life by the power of the Tablet is proven to be possible, as we have seen with Darth Vader and Oscar the Grouch in the second movie and Lancelot in the third movie.

The Kahmunrah we see in the second movie is not the mummified remains of a man brought to life like his brother and parents. Instead, he and his Mooks are a group of exhibit mannequins. We never see his mummy, nor do we ever hear mention of him from his so-called brother and parents. The Tablet itself was made special for his brother, something that - stands to reason - is also the case with the portal to the underworld.

This would also explain why he did not know the code to activate the portal, as while the Egyptologists that made him knew about the Tablet's lore and the portal to the underworld, they did not know how to activate it, Kahmunrah rationalizing him not knowing as his parents having changed the combination.

The films share the same universe as The Indian in the Cupboard